Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

[bodecea]

I tossed a lesbian couple out of my shop and refused to paint their wedding portrait. They sued me and lost.

Suuuuure.....cool story, bro.

Yep. Lost on a summary judgment.

Real cool story....what state you in?

California. They picked the wrong person. They should have picked someone in the business of portraiture. Once the two and their gay lawyer failed to prove I was in business. It was all over.

I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

 

[Marianne]

The best solution would be if homosexuality will be prohibited again. Otherwise faggots are getting more and more impudent.



Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the state of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision,” Waggoner told WND and Radio America. “The First Amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly 10 years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions.”


Read more at Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

I have a question. When Moochelle Obama's designer said she wouldn't work for Melania Trump why doesn't the left consider that the same? Actually the Christian Florist has even more right because they have a constitutional right to practice their religion whereas the Designer doesn't and just did it out of spite.

 

[saveliberty]

I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

What part of not a business is giving you the most trouble?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I tossed a lesbian couple out of my shop and refused to paint their wedding portrait. They sued me and lost.

Suuuuure.....cool story, bro.

Yep. Lost on a summary judgment.

Real cool story....what state you in?

California. They picked the wrong person. They should have picked someone in the business of portraiture. Once the two and their gay lawyer failed to prove I was in business. It was all over.

I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

In order to be subject to PA laws, it has to be a business open to the public. You made the same mistake those two lesbians made. There was never a business and certainly never a place of business open to the public. My pet grooming shop was open to the public. Alas, the two women had no pets. Therefore no claim under any PA laws.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

What part of not a business is giving you the most trouble?

It certainly gave the two lesbians and their attorney the same trouble.

 

[WorldWatcher]

California. They picked the wrong person. They should have picked someone in the business of portraiture. Once the two and their gay lawyer failed to prove I was in business. It was all over.

Well after years of touting you great legal victory over the lesbians that sued you the truth finally comes out. You won because you weren't a business. You were a private individual doing side work.


Now your story makes more sense. Public Accommodation laws apply to businesses, not non-businesses.


>>>>

 

[EvilCat Breath]

California. They picked the wrong person. They should have picked someone in the business of portraiture. Once the two and their gay lawyer failed to prove I was in business. It was all over.

Well after years of touting you great legal victory over the lesbians that sued you the truth finally comes out. You won because you weren't a business. You were a private individual doing side work.


Now your story makes more sense. Public Accommodation laws apply to businesses, not non-businesses.


>>>>

The point is, homosexuals will try to oppress anyone. They use the legal system as a bludgeon. To them, no one has a right to lead their lives as they see fit. It didn't matter to them that I wasn't in business, they were going to force me to do their bidding whether I wanted to or not. The florist, baker and photographer is just low hanging fruit. They want to control everyone.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point is, homosexuals will try to oppress anyone. They use the legal system as a bludgeon. To them, no one has a right to lead their lives as they see fit. It didn't matter to them that I wasn't in business, they were going to force me to do their bidding whether I wanted to or not. The florist, baker and photographer is just low hanging fruit. They want to control everyone.

No the point is you have been touting for years on this board your great legal victory over the lesbians that sued you in every Public Accommodation law thread (that I've seen you in).

And now we find out it was a shame since you weren't in a legal business that fell under public accommodation laws. You had a regular job/business and did some painting on the side.



>>>>

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The point is, homosexuals will try to oppress anyone. They use the legal system as a bludgeon. To them, no one has a right to lead their lives as they see fit. It didn't matter to them that I wasn't in business, they were going to force me to do their bidding whether I wanted to or not. The florist, baker and photographer is just low hanging fruit. They want to control everyone.

No the point is you have been touting for years on this board your great legal victory over the lesbians that sued you in every Public Accommodation law thread (that I've seen you in).

And now we find out it was a shame since you weren't in a legal business that fell under public accommodation laws. You had a regular job/business and did some painting on the side.



>>>>

Exactly and could not be sued. They did it anyway. And, had an attorney that thought he could.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Exactly and could not be sued. They did it anyway. And, had an attorney that thought he could.

Anyone can be sued. There is no such thing as "can't be sued". Of course the case can be thrown out if the law doesn't apply.


You know. Like PA laws apply to business and you weren't a business.


>>>>

 

[pwjohn]

Answer my question!

Sorry, did you need a written, here's my answer sign Spanky?

Answer the question

I do not answer to fascists. Particularly ones I have already given an answer. Read the thread moron.

Save your petty schoolyard insults and answer the question

 

[saveliberty]

Answer my question!

Sorry, did you need a written, here's my answer sign Spanky?

Answer the question

I do not answer to fascists. Particularly ones I have already given an answer. Read the thread moron.

Save your petty schoolyard insults and answer the question

Nice petty schoolyard insult there Spanky.

 

[Nosmo King]

They aren't participating. They're vendors of wares.

When the personal attention of the businessperson is required outside of the business premises it has moved beyond being simple vendors of wares.

Florists deliver their wares as part and parcel of their services. Elevating their involvement to that of 'participant' is a cheap rhetorical trick tended to make us believe that they are independent spensible to the ceremony. Meanwhile, have you ever seen a florist at a wedding? No. You see only their products.

They deliver and set up the arrangements. Just like the baker delivers and constructs the tiers.

Right. A long way from participating in the wedding.

In their opinion they are participating enough to constitute a sin. The issue is not up for vote nor subject to your veto.

In their opinion, they can call on constitutional protection for b9igotry under the guise of religious expression. That's twisting two things meant to both forgive and protect to serve a vile purpose. They shouldn't get away with that.

What happens when someone says it is against their religion to medically treat a Black patient? What happens when a school district says it is against their moral principles to admit a mentally handicapped student? Can new religious dogma be offered to basically turn some citizens into second class citizens?

Where does this dogma come from? How sincere is it? I may find some obscure passage in the Bible telling me that I should rob banks for the greater good. May I and when I get caught cite that passage as legitimate defense?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Best thing to do is if they cannot follow business laws, pull their business license.

Why not put them into concentration camps, the way your type typically do with dissenters?

 

[Nosmo King]

They do not participate at all. They arrange flowers. For whom those flowers are arranged is immaterial. Do florists provide flowers for Gays who are in the hospital? Are they materially and artistically participating in the hospital stay?

Do florists morally vet all their clients? Is it fitting and proper to check out the personal lives of all their clientele?

Well people are awfully crazy to pay people who don't participate huh?

You really can't see the difference between a religious rite and a hospital stay? Sorry, I really can't help your understanding on this subject at all.

If the florist was more than a set dresser...

When someone decorates sets for a play on Broadway, are they participants like the actors?

 

[keepitreal]

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

That is such bullshit...

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

......because, while the state's
anti-discrimination law itself, isn't intended to (does not)
infringe upon freedom of religious expression.... theoretically

....The courts ruling managed to do just that!

By undermining her religious convictions and determining
the extent to which she exercised her faith, violated LGTB A-D laws
is indeed, infringing on her freedom of religious expression

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off!

If this florist had provided the floral arrangements
for the wedding of two lesbians, but, refused to
provide the floral arrangements for this gay guys wedding...
THAT is discriminatory!

If this florist had provided floral arrangements
for the wedding of white man and woman, but refused
to provide a black man and white woman her services...
(or any other combination of a man and woman)
THAT is discriminatory!

When you use discrimination as a basis
to force another to go against their convictions,
and it's upheld by the courts as discriminatory....
There's a problem!

When it comes to discrimination against LGBTQ...
and whatever other fucking letter you want to add,
the the basis for discrimination is other LGBTQ

They could have gone to another florist,
instead they want to legally scold someone
for having morals, values and convictions!

 

[bodecea]

Best thing to do is if they cannot follow business laws, pull their business license.

Why not put them into concentration camps, the way your type typically do with dissenters?

So, you believe that one doesn't have to follow business laws when they have a business license.....

 

[Nosmo King]

They do not participate at all. They arrange flowers. For whom those flowers are arranged is immaterial. Do florists provide flowers for Gays who are in the hospital? Are they materially and artistically participating in the hospital stay?

Do florists morally vet all their clients? Is it fitting and proper to check out the personal lives of all their clientele?

Well people are awfully crazy to pay people who don't participate huh?

You really can't see the difference between a religious rite and a hospital stay? Sorry, I really can't help your understanding on this subject at all.

Florists and bakers and other wedding vendors are, in effect, contractors at events, not participants. Calling them participants raises their involvement to an unnecessarily high degree. Participants are, the couple to be wed, the person officiating the service, and invited guests.

The difference between that group of actual participants and sub-contractors is one group can claim the mantle of "participant" as they are not being paid nor invited to actually participat. The other group is there to earn a fee for services provided.

 

[bodecea]

The best solution would be if homosexuality will be prohibited again. Otherwise faggots are getting more and more impudent.



Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the state of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision,” Waggoner told WND and Radio America. “The First Amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly 10 years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions.”


Read more at Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

I have a question. When Moochelle Obama's designer said she wouldn't work for Melania Trump why doesn't the left consider that the same? Actually the Christian Florist has even more right because they have a constitutional right to practice their religion whereas the Designer doesn't and just did it out of spite.

Show us the part of the PA law that covers that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
So, you believe that one doesn't have to follow business laws when they have a business license.....

Laws that violate the Constitution are not valid laws. You of the Soros army have utter contempt for the 1st amendment, but it is the law of the land, despite your contempt.